The Energy Revolution has begun and will change your lifestyle

Welcome to the Energy Blog

The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

January 24, 2008

Raytheon has sold its technology to extract oil from shale and tar sands to Schlumberger, a leading oilfield services company.

In order to create new momentum for extracting oil from shale, Raytheon utilized one of its many intellectual property reserves (radio frequency, or RF, technology).

Raytheon’s solution combines RF with critical fluids (CF) processes of small business partner CF Technologies in Hyde Park, Mass. The RF/CF combination uniformly heats buried shale rock, separates the petroleum from the shale, and directs the liberated oil so that it may flow into tanks for extraction. The method is more economical and environmentally responsible than older oil shale extraction techniques as it uses far less power, does not severely disrupt the landscape or leave behind residue that can enter groundwater supplies.

According to the press release the arrangement between the two companies comes as demand for the world’s finite oil supplies continues to increase, the price per barrel is near record highs, and government and industry are looking for new sources of oil to lessen dependency on foreign suppliers.

If successfully harvested, shale could provide a long-term source of reliable, affordable and secure oil. Federal officials estimate that this resource — much of which is locked in a 16,000-acre formation beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming — could yield enough oil to meet U.S. demand at current levels for more than 250 years.

Comments

RF-CF works even better for tar sands--10 to 15 barrels produced per barrel used! It actually converts the tar sands and heavy oil to sweet crude! Very economical, in fact a steal at today's oil prices.

Good news, now that we are learning that CO2 has less effect on climate than we once believed. (it has some effect, but much lower sensitivity than thought, with no net feedbacks)

Both from the blog of Anthony Watts, currently undertaking the thankless task of improving the (currently low) credibility of the USHCN network of climate ground stations.

It is not really a matter of substantiating the negation of what is only one hypothesis out of many--even if it has become the overriding eco-dogma of modern times. CO2 is one of many forcings on the climate. Al Gore may worship at its feet, but it gets no reverence from me!
;-)

And the reality is, the dogma of anthropogenic CO2 as the root of catastrophic global warming is growing ever more tenuous, in genuine scientific circles. If you are serious about sources, you can find them as well as I can give them. But personally, I would start with the blogs of Roger Pielke Sr. and Steve McIntyre, and branch out from there.

In the best tradition of scientific reductionism, one must look at each of the components of the (highly politicized) CAGW hypothesis.

One needs to have a curious nature, however, and not be easily satisfied by glib reassurances.

And the reality is, the dogma of anthropogenic CO2 as the root of catastrophic global warming is growing ever more tenuous, in genuine scientific circles.

This notion exists only in your disordered imagination. The reality is that the consensus in the climate science community (a small population of cranks and semicranks notwithstanding) is that increased CO2 will cause global warming. This view is supported by multiple overlapping pieces of theory and evidence.

You have apparently cherrypicked some comforting denialist sites. Do be aware that such sites will always exist, even if the science is well established. This no doubt enables you to continue your escape from reality, but is more pathetic than convincing.

We have seen that current satellite trends diverge from GCM projections--even while atmospheric CO2 continues to climb.

So, the question is, what would it take to falsify the tenuous foundation of CAGW--catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? To this point, there is no "there", there. Nothing to falsify, therefore there is no science. Merely theories and computer models, backed up by a mess of proxies that contradict each other.

It is a fascinating picture of unscientific misconduct--but it will be even more fascinating to see how the shaky theories react to a contradictory reality--as time goes on. I am willing to sit and watch it happen. Who's got the popcorn?

We have seen that current satellite trends diverge from GCM projections--even while atmospheric CO2 continues to climb.

Nope, wrong. You need to do more than parrot well-debunked denialist talking points.

There was a discrepancy between surface and satellite measurements of temperature that was eventually tracked down to a miscalculation of satellite orbital decay. When the calculation error was corrected, the discrepancy disappeared.

BTW, 'current satelliate measurements' would have a hard time disagreeing with GCM predictions, since short term temperatures are so afflicted by weather noise that they cannot be used to test predictions from GCMs. This doesn't stop pseudoscientists from looking at short term noise and claiming it does just that, but they are lying.

Not only is there a continued deep discrepancy between surface temps and satellite readings (confirmed by radiosonde), we are beginning to learn why ground temps have been warm-biased. Warm-biasing of ground temps has skewed GCM results toward absurd scenarios--driving much of the mindless alarmism exemplified by the true believers.

Pseudoscience IS GCMs at this time, unfortunately. It may take another ten years of data to put to rest the current chicken little alarmist message of catastrophism.

The debate goes on, meanwhile, despite the best efforts of orthodox true believers to stamp it out.

The method is more economical and environmentally responsible than older oil shale extraction techniques as it uses far less power, does not severely disrupt the landscape or leave behind residue that can enter groundwater supplies.

Why does something as simple as an oil leak turn into a full blown out crisis? Part of the reason is that British Petroleum (BP) denied world wide help until BP realized that the oil leak was much greater than they had anticipated. Rebecca Costa discusses in her book “The Watchman’s Rattle”, how difficult it is to get people, businesses and governments to work together to solve problems. Even though we have access to the technology to prevent global epidemics like famine and starvation, they still occur despite our best efforts. What might start off as a simple problem can quickly escalate into a natural disaster if the appropriate response doesn’t happen immediately.

There are lots of opinion and facts. But I guess this is more reliable than other blog i have red before. I can say that this article is really a great piece of page where many will earn additional knowledge. Keep on writing. Thank you!